Episode 152: Mormonism and Masonry part 4: Joseph Smith and Beyond

Frankly your analysis as to the reliability of the Franklin D. Richards’s statement is problematic. Franklin himself was a Freemason in Nauvoo and at the end of his Master’s Mason’s degree he was told that due to the death of Hiram Abiff that the Master’s word was lost. He was then told that if he continued through the degrees he would obtain the Master Mason’s word. Therefore Franklin D. Richards was primed to remember anything he heard on the subject. Second there is no reason that this should be a secondary source, as there is no reason that Joseph Smith’s receipt of the true Master’s word  should have been something reserved for only those in Joseph Smith first quorum of the anointed. Given that Franklin D. Richards remarks are entirely congruent with the Masonic legends as he would have known them as a Master Mason, I see no reason to doubt his statement. Can you give any reason to doubt Franklin D. Richards comments?

While there is no reason to doubt his statement, there are numerous reasons to trust his statement.

1. The Smith’s was very interested in sacred names as can be attested to by their Masonic dagger, Masonic parchments and Jupiter talismans.
2. Joseph Smith should interest in sacred names of God as evidenced the “Sample of Pure Language document.”
3. The revised Sample of the Pure Language includes the name of God in Adamic with glyphs based on the Royal Arch cipher.
4. The Egyptian alphabet lists the Egyptian version of this name also tied to the same hieroglyphs.
5. The choice of these hieroglyphs corresponds to the a sacred name on the Jupiter Talisman.
6. Contemporary statements attributed to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo suggest that Joseph Smith had gained the Master’s word.
7. Examination of the Strangite movement provides solid evidence that James Strang’s leadership was called into question because he did not know the Master’s word.
8. Strang later received this word from member of Joseph Smith Holy Order of High Priesthood (which takes its name from Masonry) and reference to it show up with Masonic vocabulary in his Book of the Law.
9. Contemporary Masonic literature talks about the Masonry’s prime and most sacred secret to the be name of God.
10. All of Joseph Smith’s scriptures (BoM, PoGP and D&C) also mention the importance of knowing the sacred and secret name of God.

There is also other evidence that I have not laid out above which others have identified. Of course you are free to think that Franklin D. Richards is just lying about this, but I must say, I don’t see why you would come to this conclusion.

Frankly your analysis as to the reliability of the Franklin D. Richards’s statement is problematic. Franklin himself was a Freemason in Nauvoo and at the end of his Master’s Mason’s degree he was told that due to the death of Hiram Abiff that the Master’s word was lost. He was then told that if he continued through the degrees he would obtain the Master Mason’s word. Therefore Franklin D. Richards was primed to remember anything he heard on the subject. Second there is no reason that this should be a secondary source, as there is no reason that Joseph Smith’s receipt of the true Master’s word  should have been something reserved for only those in Joseph Smith first quorum of the anointed. Given that Franklin D. Richards remarks are entirely congruent with the Masonic legends as he would have known them as a Master Mason, I see no reason to doubt his statement. Can you give any reason to doubt Franklin D. Richards comments?

While there is no reason to doubt his statement, there are numerous reasons to trust his statement.

1. The Smith’s was very interested in sacred names as can be attested to by their Masonic dagger, Masonic parchments and Jupiter talismans.
2. Joseph Smith should interest in sacred names of God as evidenced the “Sample of Pure Language document.”
3. The revised Sample of the Pure Language includes the name of God in Adamic with glyphs based on the Royal Arch cipher.
4. The Egyptian alphabet lists the Egyptian version of this name also tied to the same hieroglyphs.
5. The choice of these hieroglyphs corresponds to the a sacred name on the Jupiter Talisman.
6. Contemporary statements attributed to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo suggest that Joseph Smith had gained the Master’s word.
7. Examination of the Strangite movement provides solid evidence that James Strang’s leadership was called into question because he did not know the Master’s word.
8. Strang later received this word from member of Joseph Smith Holy Order of High Priesthood (which takes its name from Masonry) and reference to it show up with Masonic vocabulary in his Book of the Law.
9. Contemporary Masonic literature talks about the Masonry’s prime and most sacred secret to the be name of God.
10. All of Joseph Smith’s scriptures (BoM, PoGP and D&C) also mention the importance of knowing the sacred and secret name of God.

There is also other evidence that I have not laid out above which others have identified. Of course you are free to think that Franklin D. Richards is just lying about this, but I must say, I don’t see why you would come to this conclusion.

Hey Nielper – I thrilled to hear that you are reading “Antiquities of Freemasonry”. I have heard from a number of people now who are making their way through the book, and most are having the same reaction as you. Sorry we are moving so quick through the podcasts, I really needed to get back to writing so that everyone can have the data in its fullest form.

I did mention Hutchinson’s “The Spirit of Masonry” the podcast; and yes I do think that Joseph Smith was familiar with the book. Hutchinson’s book, along with Salem Town’s “A System of Speculative Masonry” were probably the most popular Masonic books  prior to the Morgan Affair in New York. In the second podcast I discussed mother Smith’s use of the term “faculty of abrac.” The most extensive treatment of that phrase is contained in Hutchinson’s work. Also of interest is Hutchinson’s discussion of the Masonic Universal language which Hutchinson claims actually the pure and unadulterated language spoken by Adam. I believe this is where Joseph Smith gained his interest in the Adamic language.

Personally, I am unsure how church apologists will handle this information. Personally, I think that that truth is truth; and according to Joseph Smith, one the Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism is Truth.

Like most ideologies, Mormonism is essentially parasitic, taking culture from elsewhere and trying to make it work in slightly new contexts.  Only these days we Brighamite LDS pretend that we never rely on outside sources or evolve (at least not until the prophet says we can).

Heather I like the sentiment your phrasing here carries. That being said, let me offer you my own view. The long held belief by many is that Joseph Smith willy nilly borrowed anything and everything from every source he encountered. John describes this in the final podcast as Joseph being a magpie, somehow flitting from source to source ingesting anything he could get into his craw. While I chose not disagree with John in the podcast, my own take diverges from John’s substantially.

My own examination of Joseph Smith’s endeavors to weave his grand design of Mormonism, is that the overarching and dominant pattern is a fully Christianized Freemasonry stretching from the beginning of existence to the eternities. The pattern emerges in Vermont and continues to weave its Mandelbrot set in successively larger patterns in New York, Kirtland, Missouri and Nauvoo up until his death in Carthage jail. Joseph Smith’s borrowings seem systematic in order to create a seed which grows and matures organically, with Joseph Smith revealing to the public little by little his grand design.

Many have tried to view Mormonism through the lens of an evolutionary model, where the church in Kirtland is a new species than that found in New York, and where the Nauvoo church is another entirely new species. I think this model is seriously flawed. I prefer a developmental lens, as opposed to a evolutionary lens. The church sprouts in New York, flowers in Kirtland and Missouri amidst many bees, and finally produces its Masonic fruit in Nauvoo.

In the end there is much to learn from Joseph Smith’s weaving, and I think his final Grand Design is really quite beautiful. That is not to say that Smith’s weave is the only true pattern, nor that it has no rough edges or areas that easily untangle, but I have find beauty in his needle work and grandeur in the design.

Of course others will see things differently, and they are welcome to their well reasoned opinions, but I find I like Joseph’s piece of art.

YOU WROTE
“Just when I think I have most of it figured out,something new comes along to knock me off the track.”

MY RESPONSE
Yes, but isn’t that what makes Mormon Studies so darn fascinating?

I think that we’re seeing some of the best that’s ever been done coming to fruition. These are exciting times to be in the field.

George,

Your response to Heather-ME below gave me helpful context for your response to this question.

Also, I apologize for all the typos, I’m writing on an iPad!

JT

Hey JT- I have not read Thomas’s treatment, but I am somewhat familiar with it from secondary sources. The views of both Peterson and Vogel are probably best summed up by listening to a Sunstone Symposium in which they both discussed the matter entitled Mormonism’s ‘Anti-Masonick Bible’.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/shop/products/?product_id=2519&category=3

Peterson sees the Gadianton Robbers as an ancient group of guerrilla warriors, and thus dismisses a Masonic connection. Personally, I don’t think this position is tenable, and his reasons for discounting the Masonic connection are misguided. On the other hand, Peterson does make some strong points when he points out that Joseph and the Mormons were Jacksonian Democrats almost to a man, which seriously undermines Vogel belief that Joseph was an anti-Mason. It is here, and largely only here, that I think Peterson is correct. 

In the end I think that Vogel’s case in much stronger that of Peterson’s. The influence of Masonic sentiments during the 1820s is clear in the BoM’s portrayal of the Gadianton Robbers. However, that does not mean that Vogel’s view is entirely accurate. Vogel misses the mark when he claims Joseph Smith was anti-Masonic. In fact Joseph Smith is pro-Masonic, as long as it is the Speculative tradition, but he is anti-Masonic if we are talking about the Spurious tradition.

What most commentators on this subject have noted is that militaristic and highly political activities of the Gadianton Robbers, which they believe are absent from the Morgan Affair. However, what these writers have largely missed, is the erroneous accusations against Freemasons in their involvement in the French Revolution. Joseph Smith is working the anti-Illuminati/Freemasonic connection, either consciously or unconsciously, into his portrayal of the Gadianton Robbers. This early 1800s portrayal of Freemasonry is an important factor which nobody has addressed, and which radically shifts the balance.

As for AoF, yes it does shift the balance. Keep in mind that the strongest argument against the Gadianton Robbers being related to Freemasonry is Quinn’s incorrect idea that neither Masons nor anti-Masons portrayed the origin of Freemasonry with Satan. However, this is incorrect, as this is exactly the portrayal of Spurious Freemasonry as dictated by AoF. I hope this answers your question, if not, then please ask some followup questions.

Hey BM- I am glad to hear that the podcasts got you thinking. First of all I think you bring up some good points. You mention the mythic history of Freemasonry and how many Mormons buy into this history, believing that Freemasonry finds its roots in Solomon’s temple. FWIW that is why I spent almost so long discussing the evolution of Masonic myth in hopes of discouraging Mormons from taking this tact.

You then go on to say that the church has distanced itself from Masonry because Masonry’s authentic historical origins are very damaging to many of the things that modern day Mormons are told. While I think there is truth to what you say, I think from a historical standpoint, that we must be cautious in this interpretation. In fact Mormon distancing from its Masonic origins does not begin in the 1880s when the authentic school of Masonry begins to gain in popularity, but instead begins much earlier, beginning with the death of Joseph Smith in what church leaders believed was a Masonic plot, continuing with Mormon-Masonic tensions in Utah, and finally coming to a complete close with the formation of the Grand Lodge of Utah. All of this took place before the authentic school of Masonic history rose to prominence. When the generation that “knew not Joseph” and his Masonic inclinations finally passed away, the institutional memory of the Mormon-Masonic connection finally died.

Thus the Utah distancing from Masonry was largely not because of problems with historicity, rather it was due to tensions between Mormons and Masons and the loss of institutional memory due to circumstances. That being said, modern day apologists who try to nay-say a Mormon-Masonic connection are in an entirely different boat, and they are largely paddling upstream against the evidence.